Did/Does he?

Eismann wrote:I voted 'probably.' I still find it not believable that a billion other people in that sport have been popped for doping but somehow the all-time greatest is clean.

He isn't the all-time greatest, maybe if you just focus on the Tour de France though even that's debatable, but there's a lot more besides that. The Tour de France isn't even the toughest race, just the one that has the best marketing.

Rocco wrote:Either he's the greatest racer ever to win without doping while everyone else is cheating, or he's the best cheater ever since everyone else seems to get caught.

As Gacho stated.. he already failed tests before in 2005, but he fought it like crazy / just made it confusing so everyone forgot about itWiki for Convenience

On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO) in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods.[75][76] Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[77] In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[78] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyze these samples – everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[79] However, according to the results of an investigative report by Emile Vrijman (a Dutch lawyer and the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency, which he headed for ten years), who was appointed by the UCI to head an independent investigations into the LNDD lab’s findings, it was determined that the analysis of the urine samples were conducted improperly and that they “did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing.”[80][81] Vrijman’s report went on to state that handling and testing of the samples fell so far short of scientific standards, and that “the process that generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient” that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results could "constitute evidence of anything,” and cleared Armstrong of any wrongdoing.[81][82][83][84] But WADA rejected these conclusions stating "The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical."

Rocco wrote:Either he's the greatest racer ever to win without doping while everyone else is cheating, or he's the best cheater ever since everyone else seems to get caught.

As Gacho stated.. he already failed tests before in 2005, but he fought it like crazy / just made it confusing so everyone forgot about itWiki for Convenience

On August 23, 2005, L'Équipe, a major French daily sports newspaper, reported on its front page under the headline "le mensonge Armstrong" ("The Armstrong Lie") that 6 urine samples taken from the cyclist during the prologue and five stages of the 1999 Tour de France, frozen and stored since at "Laboratoire national de dépistage du dopage de Châtenay-Malabry" (LNDD), had tested positive for erythropoietin (EPO) in recent retesting conducted as part of a research project into EPO testing methods.[75][76] Armstrong immediately replied on his website, saying, "Unfortunately, the witch hunt continues and tomorrow's article is nothing short of tabloid journalism. The paper even admits in its own article that the science in question here is faulty and that I have no way to defend myself. They state: 'There will therefore be no counter-exam nor regulatory prosecutions, in a strict sense, since defendant's rights cannot be respected.' I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance enhancing drugs."[77] In October 2008, the AFLD gave Armstrong the opportunity to have samples taken during the 1998 and 1999 Tours de France retested.[78] Armstrong immediately refused, saying, "the samples have not been maintained properly." Head of AFLD Pierre Bordry stated: "Scientifically there is no problem to analyze these samples – everything is correct" and "If the analysis is clean it would have been very good for him. But he doesn't want to do it and that's his problem."[79] However, according to the results of an investigative report by Emile Vrijman (a Dutch lawyer and the former head of the Dutch anti-doping agency, which he headed for ten years), who was appointed by the UCI to head an independent investigations into the LNDD lab’s findings, it was determined that the analysis of the urine samples were conducted improperly and that they “did not satisfy any standard for doping control testing.”[80][81] Vrijman’s report went on to state that handling and testing of the samples fell so far short of scientific standards, and that “the process that generated those results and the subsequent reports was so deficient” that it was "completely irresponsible" to suggest that the results could "constitute evidence of anything,” and cleared Armstrong of any wrongdoing.[81][82][83][84] But WADA rejected these conclusions stating "The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical."

So basically, he did exactly what we would expect someone who is clean to do when he tests dirty and fought it tooth and nail? Considering that the head of WADA ended up getting rebuked by the IOC for his comments about that test I'm not sure if that says anything.

Even if he was doping, everyone else was too so he was still the best. Cycling is notorious for doping from what I've heard. I feel bad that it's come to this, but where there's smoke there's usually fire. Argument against this would be his testicular cancer, but didn't his testicular cancer metastasize to his brain, in a rare occurrence?

I know doping exists in other sports, but it is impossible to even take cycling seriously. Even when I was watching during the Olympics, I couldn't watch it without the thought that most of them were cheating popping into my head every couple of minutes.

shafnutz05 wrote:I know doping exists in other sports, but it is impossible to even take cycling seriously. Even when I was watching during the Olympics, I couldn't watch it without the thought that most of them were cheating popping into my head every couple of minutes.

The guy who won the road race was coming off of a ban. Not sure how you could enjoy watching any NFL games with that attitude though? Re: the players' union that would rather have a lockout than blood testing.

shafnutz05 wrote:I know doping exists in other sports, but it is impossible to even take cycling seriously. Even when I was watching during the Olympics, I couldn't watch it without the thought that most of them were cheating popping into my head every couple of minutes.

The guy who won the road race was coming off of a ban. Not sure how you could enjoy watching any NFL games with that attitude though? Re: the players' union that would rather have a lockout than blood testing.

I know it goes on in other sports, but it has just always been at the forefront of cycling for so many years now.

What I don't get is why they're still after the guy 7 years after he won his last race. I don't know if he's clean or not. I understand this is probably the dirtiest sport in the world when it comes to doping but this just seems like a vendetta against him

stopper40 wrote:What I don't get is why they're still after the guy 7 years after he won his last race. I don't know if he's clean or not. I understand this is probably the dirtiest sport in the world when it comes to doping but this just seems like a vendetta against him

I believe it's kind of a preemptive strike to keep him from competing (and probably winning) the Ironman.

I would be a lot more inclined to think this was a vendetta if this was a European or world anti-doping organization. But this is the USADA that is so doggedly pursuing this. I don't really think they have a vendetta against American athletes.

My friend loved Lance Armstrong, to the point he named his now 7 year old Lance. A few years ago the kid found out who he was named after and told people that he can ride a bike faster than anyone. I wasn't even out of bed yet before I started sending him messages about Performance Enhancing Fruit Snacks

shafnutz05 wrote:I know doping exists in other sports, but it is impossible to even take cycling seriously. Even when I was watching during the Olympics, I couldn't watch it without the thought that most of them were cheating popping into my head every couple of minutes.

The guy who won the road race was coming off of a ban. Not sure how you could enjoy watching any NFL games with that attitude though? Re: the players' union that would rather have a lockout than blood testing.

I know it goes on in other sports, but it has just always been at the forefront of cycling for so many years now.